Matrox rulez 4ever!

[Alec]

23.11 Detonators here, and not a single problem running (fast, I might add) the games in the attached picture. It´s a shame that my GF2 doesn´t have the same razor sharp 2D visuals. But I´m keeping my G400.

[[GDI]Raptor]

Matrox....

The nVidia card i tested (Ti500) got trown out after 5 days, because of too bad 2D graphics, We'll get an Radeon 8500 at my office soon to test it! But today, all workstations use G200/400/450/550, and on our IT department we use G550 in all machines....

So were all MATROUXOR as Kosh Naranek pointed out....

[Randy Simons]

Uhm You try to simulate the louzy image quality by posting a screenshot as a jpeg? It indeed looks rotten Screenshots should be PNG anyway... Jpeg stinks for screenshots.

Anyway, I believe most (all?) of those games run fine on a G400, unless you run them at insane resolutions of course..

Rats, seems my icon wasn't original anymore

[Alec]

NOT on a 476MHz Celeron at 72MHz FSB on a 16Mb G400. Now I play at almost double the speed with all the eye candy on at full glorious 32-bit, 1024x768 resolution.

I´m really waiting for a powerful 3D Matrox card, because I´m already missing the 2D.

[Randy Simons]

[Deja vu]
Hmm, ok, but then why not sell the GF2, use the money to upgrade your CPU to decent levels so that not only your games run twice as fast, but everything else as well?
[/Deja vu]

Even if Matrox were to come with a stunning piece of hardware that could satisfy even me then still your CPU is a major bottleneck.

[Wombat]

Because if he's using that CPU at that speed, I'd bet he's got an LX mobo, and would need to replace that as well. Also, a 16MB G400 would show its age w.r.t. the limited memory.

Besides that, CPU boosts don't help nearly as much as the video card switch.

[Jon P. Inghram]

For the most part, the GF3 Ti-200 I tested was far faster than my G400 MAX, especialy with 3DMark2k1.

However, we decided it wasn't worth spending $200 on when it seems the GF4 is supposed to be coming out soon, and may it be a "new" chip, not just a revamped Voodo... err... GeForce 256.

And of course there's the faint hope that Matrox might possibly maybe have a slightly perceptable chance of eventualy conceviably releasing a card that has the potental to perhaps be marginaly competive.

[Snake-Eyes]

Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram
And of course there's the faint hope that Matrox might possibly maybe have a slightly perceptable chance of eventualy conceviably releasing a card that has the potental to perhaps be marginaly competive.

LOL. Trying to be subtle?

[Jon P. Inghram]

Yeah, don't want to sound like I'm getting my hopes too far up.

[Alec]

Wombat is right.
I´m playing games like I never thought I would on my LX board on a Celeron 476MHz. And it´s a Geforce 2 MX400... I guess it scales down very well. And it was cheap. The mobo and processor upgrade will come in a couple of months time. To play the games with the 16Mb G400 at the speed I´m playing I would need a 1800+ AthlonXP.

[Alec]

Just realized I´m a Super Murcer now.

[Beezer]

Booster: why not use the ASUS drivers? http://www.asus.com.tw/download/mult.../vga-enthu.htm

I have the same Asus Ti200 using those drivers and have not seen a problem, nor have I seen a need to use the Nvidea detonator drivers. (I'm running an Athlon 1700 using WinXP).

By the way I still have the G400 in my other system. To be honest, I don't notice any different in 2D quality between the two. Of coarse the 19" monitor on my Geforce system is better than the 19" monitor on the Matrox system....

[Reckless]

Originally posted by Alec
Just realized I´m a Super Murcer now.

Hmm, and not even running a Matrox card in yer main machine anymore!

nVidia drivers have always been (and look set to continue) a bag of nails. Once revision adds GFx support whislt breaking GFx-1, dual screen (twinview) was at one time completely laughable but at least that now seems to work. Getting the write combination can take many hours of faffing about.

Compared to any card released in the last 12 months my G400Max is crap. But hey, it works and I feed it data from a P3-1Ghz so it's going as fast as it can. I've never had any grief with Matrox drivers unlike all other systems I've built (generally for gamers that 'require' nVidia speed).

[GT98]

I've been a user of Matrox products since the G200 Marvel (with Voodoo 2 SLI setup!, that was the shit...best of both worlds-2d and 3d!) and got the G400MAX in October 99. She lasted in my machine till December 2000 when it was replaced by a AIW Radeon (what a POS driverwise) which lasted a whole 6 months before getting canned by a Kyro2 video card. the Kyro was pretty good till this past fall when the new drivers came out and totally muffed up everything when I was playing OPF in either W2K or WinXP (screwed the Registry up in XP!). The Kyro lasted till December when Dell finally got me my Radeon 8500, which I'm pretty happy with!

The Rumors I have heard is that the new Matrox card will be 3x faster then whats out on the market, but also painfully expensive with the cheapest model being about $300 bucks. I love Matrox and all but if this is true...well I won't be getting the New Matrox Card till the Fall.

Anyway the G400 is still soldering on my GF Box and its great for what she uses it for...though I'm a bit jelous at times with its nice 2d and 3d quailty .

[Belwarrior]

Happy New Year All (Even if it is a bit late

I have a friend who was using nVidia 12.xx drivers then he decided to update to 23.11 (i guess that is a long time he didnt update) and the performance degraded. Lagging in CS etc where there were none before. I told him to go back to 12.xx as it was stable. But just curious to know whether anyone could recommend a very stable and fast driver before ver 23.xx?